Looking for good table with all Java operators
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: ?k???O?T?h???C
Next: JVM and java application
From: Patricia Shanahan on 25 Jan 2010 08:47 Robbo wrote: > And the second thing... > > Here http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/lexical.html#3.12 > you may find information that: > "The following 37 tokens are the operators, formed from ASCII characters: > Operator: one of > = > < ! ~ ? : > == <= >= != && || ++ -- > + - * / & | ^ % << >>> >>> > += -= *= /= &= |= ^= %= <<= >>> = >>>=" This table is correct by definition. Java is what the JLS says it is. "new" is a keyword, not an operator. It is in the same category as "class". > There is no information about "new" which is also operator: > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/objectcreation.html > "The new keyword is a Java operator that creates the object." Tutorials are secondary documentation, not necessarily correct. If the JLS and a tutorial disagree about an issue of Java language definition, believe the JLS and ignore what the tutorial says. > In tables of operators > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/operators.html > there is no information about "new". > > So, as you can see, I need GOOD table of operators, not any table of > operators. I would avoid the whole attempt to construct tables that cover everything. Use tables for the things that can be summarized easily in tables, but don't try to push everything into that model. Note that some symbols have multiple roles in the syntax. For example, a "(" it can be the start of a Parenthesized Expression, part of the syntax for a Method Invocation Expression, or part of the syntax, along with "new", for a Class Instance Creation Expression. "." also has several uses. Patricia
From: Roedy Green on 25 Jan 2010 10:03 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:21:11 +0100, "Robbo" <nie.mam(a)yle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I need to create complete table of Java operators >with their priorities and associations see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/precedence.html -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com Don�t be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid. ~ John Keats (born: 1795-10-31 died: 1821-02-23 at age: 25)
From: Roedy Green on 25 Jan 2010 10:17 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:22:09 +0100, "Robbo" <nie.mam(a)yle.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >If not, why tables of operators you provided me with include () [] and . ? You could describe Java with a grammar that considered them as operators with a precedence. They do fit into the precedence scheme even if they don't usually cause any sort of calculation. (cast) does sometime do a sort of computation. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com Don�t be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid. ~ John Keats (born: 1795-10-31 died: 1821-02-23 at age: 25)
From: Robbo on 25 Jan 2010 10:46 Thanks for the answer. Well, this http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/operators.html seems to be complete table of operators in Java. The only problem I see is lack of "cast operator". Right? Robbo
From: Joshua Cranmer on 25 Jan 2010 11:25
On 01/25/2010 10:46 AM, Robbo wrote: > Thanks for the answer. Well, this > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/operators.html > seems to be complete table of operators in Java. The only problem > I see is lack of "cast operator". Java calls it a "cast expression"; if you carefully read the JLS, you'll notice it is at the same level of precedence as an unary operator. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth |